Philip Francis Queeg:way south: Mentat: way south: Zimmerman wasn't attempting to enforce laws himself. He didn't detain anyone. He was just an armed watch, no aspect of which is illegal in that state. Talking to strangers is legal. Having a gun for self defense is legal (and advisable, considering the risks). Working with the cops is legal. Patrolling your neighborhood and organizing neighbors, all legal.

What isn't legal is throwing a punch at someone who questions you.The evidence shows, and everyone seems to agree, that Trayvon escalated the encounter.

Whether Zimmerman responded appropriately is the question. But everything up to that point is above board.

No, ZImmerman escalated the situation by ignoring the advice of the 911 operator, chasing down Trayvon, and putting him in a position where he felt threatened. It wasn't Zimmerman's job to chase down and question Trayvon. Which brings us back to the question: Why can Zimmerman invoke Stand Your Ground in his defense and not Trayvon? Why is it legal for Zimmerman to fatally shot someone in self-defense but it's illegal for Trayvon to punch someone in self-defense?

If you feel threatened, you run.You can't run if someone mounts you and starts to rain blows on your face.

Trayvon could have sited self defense if he was the one pinned under Zimmerman. But here we've got that pesky evidence again, causing problems with the preferred narrative.

You'd imply that if Zimmerman didn't go near his would be assailant with that fat punchable face of his, everything would have been ok.The law doesn't see it that way.

If Zimmerman felt so threatened by the sight of this teenager walking through the neighborhood that he felt compelled to call 911, why didn't he run rather than follow him and confront him?

Or just stayed in his truck and waited for the cops to come as he was advised to do.

This case is not conservative "jack-off fodder". You're over deflecting. This case actually removes any doubt that Martin's ilk fail to understand that we live in a constitutional republic, not some third world sh*t hole like Zimbabwe or colonial America. It's a Shakespearean irony that Florida law enforcement have to plan to prevent black mobs from lynching Zimmerman, all the while screaming about civil rights.

Sure it is. And your response demonstrates exactly why. It gives you your chance to perpetuate some horseshiat about how white people are the real victims of racism, all the while celebrating the murder of some unarmed 17 year old kid by one of your fellow authoritarian cosplayers.

This case is not conservative "jack-off fodder". You're over deflecting. This case actually removes any doubt that Martin's ilk fail to understand that we live in a constitutional republic, not some third world sh*t hole like Zimbabwe or colonial America. It's a Shakespearean irony that Florida law enforcement have to plan to prevent black mobs from lynching Zimmerman, all the while screaming about civil rights.

Sure it is. And your response demonstrates exactly why. It gives you your chance to perpetuate some horseshiat about how white people are the real victims of racism, all the while celebrating the murder of some unarmed 17 year old kid by one of your fellow authoritarian cosplayers.

I don't perpetuate anything. And I wouldn't (and don't) celebrate the murder of kids (or anyone).

You are citing a random loon's youtube rantings as justification for your tiny-weened DERP? Yeah, get bent.

Philip Francis Queeg:way south: Mentat: way south: Zimmerman wasn't attempting to enforce laws himself. He didn't detain anyone. He was just an armed watch, no aspect of which is illegal in that state. Talking to strangers is legal. Having a gun for self defense is legal (and advisable, considering the risks). Working with the cops is legal. Patrolling your neighborhood and organizing neighbors, all legal.

What isn't legal is throwing a punch at someone who questions you.The evidence shows, and everyone seems to agree, that Trayvon escalated the encounter.

Whether Zimmerman responded appropriately is the question. But everything up to that point is above board.

No, ZImmerman escalated the situation by ignoring the advice of the 911 operator, chasing down Trayvon, and putting him in a position where he felt threatened. It wasn't Zimmerman's job to chase down and question Trayvon. Which brings us back to the question: Why can Zimmerman invoke Stand Your Ground in his defense and not Trayvon? Why is it legal for Zimmerman to fatally shot someone in self-defense but it's illegal for Trayvon to punch someone in self-defense?

If you feel threatened, you run.You can't run if someone mounts you and starts to rain blows on your face.

Trayvon could have sited self defense if he was the one pinned under Zimmerman. But here we've got that pesky evidence again, causing problems with the preferred narrative.

You'd imply that if Zimmerman didn't go near his would be assailant with that fat punchable face of his, everything would have been ok.The law doesn't see it that way.

If Zimmerman felt so threatened by the sight of this teenager walking through the neighborhood that he felt compelled to call 911, why didn't he run rather than follow him and confront him?

Its likely George didn't feel "threatened" until he was hit, or he would have approached with his gun drawn (like any trigger happy wannabe cop would).This is opposed to Trayvon, who felt so "threatened" he had to throw punches, mount his aggressor, and throw more punches.

Shouting questions at strangers will usually get you insulted by them.Punching strangers is an act likely to get you killed.

The evidence shows Trayvon actions were the more unreasonable ones. The ones more likely to result in violence. Zimmerman had no reason to expect an assault from talking to someone walking through his watch area. He had the right to protect himself from injury.

Talking to people in your zone is part of what the watch is supposed to do. Getting punched, in response, isn't.

way south:Its likely George didn't feel "threatened" until he was hit, or he would have approached with his gun drawn (like any trigger happy wannabe cop would).This is opposed to Trayvon, who felt so "threatened" he had to throw punches, mount his aggressor, and throw more punches.

Shouting questions at strangers will usually get you insulted by them.Punching strangers is an act likely to get you killed.

The evidence shows Trayvon actions were the more unreasonable ones. The ones more likely to result in violence. Zimmerman had no reason to expect an assault from talking to someone walking through his watch area. He had the right to protect himself from injury.

Talking to people in your zone is part of what the watch is supposed to do. Getting punched, in response, isn't.

Wow, that's a whole heap of speculation on your part.

Since you claim this is all proven by "evidence":

What precise words did Zimmerman say to Martin?

Where exactly on Zimmerman's body did Martin throw the first punch?

Was it a left or a right?

Where were Zimmerman's hands when Martin attacked him?

Had Zimmerman made any physical contact with Martin prior to the claimed first punch?

way south:If you feel threatened, you run.You can't run if someone mounts you and starts to rain blows on your face.

Trayvon could have sited self defense if he was the one pinned under Zimmerman. But here we've got that pesky evidence again, causing problems with the preferred narrative.

You'd imply that if Zimmerman didn't go near his would be assailant with that fat punchable face of his, everything would have been ok.The law doesn't see it that way.

Trayvon felt threatened. He ran. Zimmerman chased him down. What was Trayvon supposed to do then? What if he saw the gun and thought his life was in danger? And why is it that Trayvon no longer gets to claim self-defense since he got the upper hand? Was he supposed to let Zimmerman throw the first punch? He confronted Zimmerman twice and Zimmerman kept chasing him down. At what point is Trayvon justified in defending himself?

And I'm implying nothing. I'm outright saying that if Zimmerman had stayed in his car and let the police handle the situation, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I don't care how "the law" sees it, common sense says stay in your damn car and let the police handle it.

Mentat:And I'm implying nothing. I'm outright saying that if Zimmerman had stayed in his car and let the police handle the situation, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I don't care how "the law" sees it, common sense says stay in your damn car and let the police handle it.

Didn't you read his post? It was officer Pudgy's sworn duty as a "neighborhood watch" um..whatever to question strangers on their business. If he didn't get the answer he wanted he was allowed to go all Rambo on them! Yeesh, man. Keep up.

Mentat:way south: If you feel threatened, you run.You can't run if someone mounts you and starts to rain blows on your face.

Trayvon could have sited self defense if he was the one pinned under Zimmerman. But here we've got that pesky evidence again, causing problems with the preferred narrative.

You'd imply that if Zimmerman didn't go near his would be assailant with that fat punchable face of his, everything would have been ok.The law doesn't see it that way.

Trayvon felt threatened. He ran. Zimmerman chased him down. What was Trayvon supposed to do then? What if he saw the gun and thought his life was in danger? And why is it that Trayvon no longer gets to claim self-defense since he got the upper hand? Was he supposed to let Zimmerman throw the first punch? He confronted Zimmerman twice and Zimmerman kept chasing him down. At what point is Trayvon justified in defending himself?

And I'm implying nothing. I'm outright saying that if Zimmerman had stayed in his car and let the police handle the situation, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I don't care how "the law" sees it, common sense says stay in your damn car and let the police handle it.

That's an interesting contention ... one that is widely shared in 3rd world countries.

Mentat:way south: If you feel threatened, you run.You can't run if someone mounts you and starts to rain blows on your face.

Trayvon could have sited self defense if he was the one pinned under Zimmerman. But here we've got that pesky evidence again, causing problems with the preferred narrative.

You'd imply that if Zimmerman didn't go near his would be assailant with that fat punchable face of his, everything would have been ok.The law doesn't see it that way.

Trayvon felt threatened. He ran. Zimmerman chased him down. What was Trayvon supposed to do then? What if he saw the gun and thought his life was in danger? And why is it that Trayvon no longer gets to claim self-defense since he got the upper hand? Was he supposed to let Zimmerman throw the first punch? He confronted Zimmerman twice and Zimmerman kept chasing him down. At what point is Trayvon justified in defending himself?

And I'm implying nothing. I'm outright saying that if Zimmerman had stayed in his car and let the police handle the situation, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I don't care how "the law" sees it, common sense says stay in your damn car and let the police handle it.

Martin had 3-4 minutes to walk 350 feet to his father's house. he is either the slowest runner in the world or he doubled back to ask why Zimmerman was following him.

You don't get to throw the first punch just because someone is following you. Since following someone is legal in FL assaulting them isn't a good option.

The police told the local neighborhood watch, and testified during trial, that following suspicious people and reporting their activity is what they should do. In fact the exact processes apprehended a bugler in the neighborhood in the past.

way south:Its likely George didn't feel "threatened" until he was hit, or he would have approached with his gun drawn (like any trigger happy wannabe cop would).This is opposed to Trayvon, who felt so "threatened" he had to throw punches, mount his aggressor, and throw more punches.

Shouting questions at strangers will usually get you insulted by them.Punching strangers is an act likely to get you killed.

The evidence shows Trayvon actions were the more unreasonable ones. The ones more likely to result in violence. Zimmerman had no reason to expect an assault from talking to someone walking through his watch area. He had the right to protect himself from injury.

Talking to people in your zone is part of what the watch is supposed to do. Getting punched, in response, isn't.

The scenario you've created has no basis in reality. You act like Zimmerman yelled "Hey you!" and Trayon started beating him. That's not what happened.

Trayvon was minding his own business. He noticed a strange guy in a car following him. He confronted Zimmerman and Zimmerman refused to identify himself, so Trayvon ran. Zimmerman, ignoring the advice of the 911 operator, followed Trayvon. Trayvon confronted him again and again ZImmerman refused to identify himself. Trayvon started throwing punches, Zimmerman got scared and killed Trayvon. It was Zimmerman who provoked the fight by escalating the situation.

Whiskey Pete:Carth: If they verbally threaten you or initiate physical contact you can defend yourself but there is no evidence Zimmerman did either of those things to maCarth: Mentat: Carth: You don't get to throw the first punch just because someone is following you. Since following someone is legal in FL assaulting them isn't a good option.

Really? So in Florida, if someone is following me and I think they mean me harm, I'm not allowed to throw a punch but I am allowed to "Stand My Ground" and blow them away? How does that work?

If someone is following you and you think they mean you harm the correct thing to do is call the police not start swinging.

If they verbally threaten you or initiate physical contact you can defend yourself but there is no evidence Zimmerman did either of those things to martin.

You're a moran.

If I missed important evidence from the trial all you had to do was say what instead of resorting to insults.

Carth:Mentat: Carth: You don't get to throw the first punch just because someone is following you. Since following someone is legal in FL assaulting them isn't a good option.

Really? So in Florida, if someone is following me and I think they mean me harm, I'm not allowed to throw a punch but I am allowed to "Stand My Ground" and blow them away? How does that work?

If someone is following you and you think they mean you harm the correct thing to do is call the police not start swinging.

If they verbally threaten you or initiate physical contact you can defend yourself but there is no evidence Zimmerman did either of those things to martin.

There's undisputed evidence that Zimmerman shot Martin to death at close range. There's also undisputed evidence that he followed Martin even after being told not to by the police, and that he voluntarily left his vehicle to confront Martin. So he started a confrontation and ended it with his gun. What happened in between is in dispute. But you can't imagine the best possible scenario for Zimmerman and say it's the truth unless the state proves otherwise. The burden of proof for an affirmative defense is on the defendant. Zimmerman has to offer evidence that he was not only struck by Martin, but that Martin was the initial aggressor (because under Florida law and virtually every other state, self-defense is not available to the aggressor). Where is that evidence???

Martin hit Zimmerman. Yes, for sure. Granted. But where is the evidence that Martin made the first physical contact, or agressive move? Why would you assume that the man walking back from a snack run who has never killed or severly injured anyone is going to attempt to beat someone to death just for following him, and without somehow being hit, grabbed, or otherwise assaulted by Zimmerman? And more to the point, what evidence has Zimmerman given of that?

way south:If you feel threatened, you run.You can't run if someone mounts you and starts to rain blows on your face.

So if Trayvon felt threatened he should have run, and of course if had run and Zimmerman had chased him this wouldn't have been a sign or used as a sign that he was up to no good. Zimmerman wouldn't have chased the kid he was already following if Trayvon had just started to run.

MagicianNamedGob:Carth: Mentat: Carth: You don't get to throw the first punch just because someone is following you. Since following someone is legal in FL assaulting them isn't a good option.

Really? So in Florida, if someone is following me and I think they mean me harm, I'm not allowed to throw a punch but I am allowed to "Stand My Ground" and blow them away? How does that work?

If someone is following you and you think they mean you harm the correct thing to do is call the police not start swinging.

If they verbally threaten you or initiate physical contact you can defend yourself but there is no evidence Zimmerman did either of those things to martin.

There's undisputed evidence that Zimmerman shot Martin to death at close range. There's also undisputed evidence that he followed Martin even after being told not to by the police, and that he voluntarily left his vehicle to confront Martin. So he started a confrontation and ended it with his gun. What happened in between is in dispute. But you can't imagine the best possible scenario for Zimmerman and say it's the truth unless the state proves otherwise. The burden of proof for an affirmative defense is on the defendant. Zimmerman has to offer evidence that he was not only struck by Martin, but that Martin was the initial aggressor (because under Florida law and virtually every other state, self-defense is not available to the aggressor). Where is that evidence???

Martin hit Zimmerman. Yes, for sure. Granted. But where is the evidence that Martin made the first physical contact, or agressive move? Why would you assume that the man walking back from a snack run who has never killed or severly injured anyone is going to attempt to beat someone to death just for following him, and without somehow being hit, grabbed, or otherwise assaulted by Zimmerman? And more to the point, what evidence has Zimmerman given of that?

That is completely false. The 911 operator, not the police, said "We don't need you to do that". Neither the police nor the 911 operator told him not to do anything. The police detective testified that following someone and reporting on their actions is what they oftenrecommend people do for suspicious activity. Zimmerman had a legal right to leave his vehicle and follow martin on public property. Self defense is an affirmative defense in FL you're correct. But what that means in FL is the burden is on the state to submit evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that events did not occur as Zimmerman stated.

The state has no evidence that Zimmerman was lying when he says he was assaulted and Martin reached for his gun. We have witness testimony that Martin was beating Zimmerman immediately before the shooting. If Zimmerman assaulted martin first we'd expect him to have some bruising on him, like a broken nose, other than a gunshot wound.

Carth:If Zimmerman assaulted martin first we'd expect him to have some bruising on him, like a broken nose, other than a gunshot wound.

You can get punched in the face without being hit in the nose, you can be hit in the nose hard enough to bloody your nose and cause your eyes to water without having your nose being broken. Not sure how you can tell if someone was punched a few minutes before they were shot in the head. How could you tell if the blood was from the punch or the gunshot wound. How the hell can there be bruising if the heart stops beating before the whole coagulation cascade even gets started? Bruises don't appear immediately watch a faucking boxing match sometime and tell that as soon as the first punch is landed bruising starts.

Zimmerman does not necessarily have a legal right to "follow someone on public property" as you so diplomatically put it. That depends on the manner and cirmustances. Chasing someone down at night and putting him in fear of bodily harm is illegal. It's called assault. And Zimmerman doesn't have to break Martin's nose to be the aggressor. He just has to grab him, or even just chase him.

The state only has to disprove an affirmative defense after the defendant has met his burden of showing suffiicient evidence. In this case, Zimmerman must show some evidence that Martin attacked him without provocation. There is no witness evidence about how the fight started. In fact, I think the evidence is pretty clear that Martin was sufficiently provoked by Zimmerman following him for an extended period of time and then exiting his vehicle to confront Martin.

There is very good evidence that Zimmerman was acting in a threatening way towards Martin, and that's the fact that there was fight. Either Zimmerman attacked first, and he's the agressor. Or Martin threw the first punch because he felt assaulted somehow. The only other option, and the one the defense wants us to believe, is that even though Martin wasn't grabbed, assaulted, or threatened in any way, he spontaneously decided for the first time in his life to try to beat a stranger to death on the sidewalk. I find that an unreasonable supposition, and an unreasonable doubt.

spongeboob:Carth: If Zimmerman assaulted martin first we'd expect him to have some bruising on him, like a broken nose, other than a gunshot wound.

You can get punched in the face without being hit in the nose, you can be hit in the nose hard enough to bloody your nose and cause your eyes to water without having your nose being broken. Not sure how you can tell if someone was punched a few minutes before they were shot in the head. How could you tell if the blood was from the punch or the gunshot wound. How the hell can there be bruising if the heart stops beating before the whole coagulation cascade even gets started? Bruises don't appear immediately watch a faucking boxing match sometime and tell that as soon as the first punch is landed bruising starts.

I couldn't tell if someone was injured before being shot. I can say the medical examiner said during testimony that Martin didn't appear to have any injuries except the gunshot wound while Zimmerman suffered a broken nose and head lacerations consistent with his head being hit against concrete.

MagicianNamedGob:Martin has a right to go on a snack run without being accosted.

Zimmerman does not necessarily have a legal right to "follow someone on public property" as you so diplomatically put it. That depends on the manner and cirmustances. Chasing someone down at night and putting him in fear of bodily harm is illegal. It's called assault. And Zimmerman doesn't have to break Martin's nose to be the aggressor. He just has to grab him, or even just chase him.

The state only has to disprove an affirmative defense after the defendant has met his burden of showing suffiicient evidence. In this case, Zimmerman must show some evidence that Martin attacked him without provocation. There is no witness evidence about how the fight started. In fact, I think the evidence is pretty clear that Martin was sufficiently provoked by Zimmerman following him for an extended period of time and then exiting his vehicle to confront Martin.

There is very good evidence that Zimmerman was acting in a threatening way towards Martin, and that's the fact that there was fight. Either Zimmerman attacked first, and he's the agressor. Or Martin threw the first punch because he felt assaulted somehow. The only other option, and the one the defense wants us to believe, is that even though Martin wasn't grabbed, assaulted, or threatened in any way, he spontaneously decided for the first time in his life to try to beat a stranger to death on the sidewalk. I find that an unreasonable supposition, and an unreasonable doubt.

Are you watching the trial? A couple of your points were discussed as recently as this morning with jury instruction. Yes, you do have the right to follow someone in FL on public property. If you can find a law that says you can't you should forward it to the prosecution because they'd love to be able to cite it and change the instructions.

Following someone is not assault, hitting someone is. If there is any evidence that Zimmerman struck martin first he would be guilty of murder but there isn't any.

If you have very good evidence of any of those things definitely contact the state since they didn't enter any of it as evidence in trial.

Whiskey Pete:HeartBurnKid: Doesn't Florida have laws against aggravated stalking? Because I'm pretty sure Mr. Zimmerman was engaged in that activity at the time of the incident

Have you forgotten that Martin was black or something, pal?

Florida does have laws that criminalize stalking. But Zimmerman stopped following Martin when dispatch told him to. Zimmerman was walking back to his truck to meet the police. It was during this time period, after Zimmerman stopped following Martin and before he reached his truck, that the altercation happened. The real issue is this: Are we to believe that a black kid would randomly punch (or target a punch) a non-black person?

It establishes that Zimmerman is probably telling the truth about being attacked (viciously); that a certain segment of the US population, who are held to an affirmative interpretation of the law by, are prone to horrific violence and general lawlessness and that Martin was a member of that segment.

StreetlightInTheGhetto:knbwhite: It could have been that Martin backtracked a bit, confronted Zimmerman and initiated the physical altercation. If that is true, I don't have a problem with the shooting.

Really?

I can see you believing Zimmerman was justified, under the circumstances. I don't agree with it, but I can see it.

But HONESTLY, other than dead men tell no tales, HOW was Martin not "standing his ground" at that point? Where he was doing nothing wrong but had someone trailing him through dark lit areas? You really don't have even the slightest bit of problem that an unarmed kid was shot and killed while walking through a neighborhood? F--k you, then. I can buy people who argue that in the heat of the confused moment, it was justified. I don't agree, but I can understand the argument. I don't understand on any level those who have no problem with the shooting whatsoever.

Well, there is a big if. No one can justify shooting a teen just walking through a neighborhood, but that's not the whole story is it?

The only way I don't have a problem with the shooting is IF Martin broke off his route home to backtrack to Zimmerman and IF Martin was the first one to get physical. It has not been proven positively that is what happened, but I also don't think second degree murder has been proven either.

If that was the situation, does Zimmerman have to wait until Martin escalates further? Martin pulls an knife, then and only then Z gets to pull a knife or gun out? It seem to me that Martin was on top of Z, so how did we get to that situation? If Martin was the one yelling for help on the 911 call, what could Zimmerman have been doing to prompt that?

I don't understand all the minute points of the stand your ground law. If Martin was justified in approaching Zimmerman and justified in throwing a punch, then the law should be clarified.

MJMaloney187:It establishes that Zimmerman is probably telling the truth about being attacked (viciously); that a certain segment of the US population, who are held to an affirmative interpretation of the law by, are prone to horrific violence and general lawlessness and that Martin was a member of that segment.

White people really have proven to be so non-violent and peaceful, especially to minorities. American history is one long story of the peaceful, pacifist whites being cruelly victimized by the lesser races.

Philip Francis Queeg:MJMaloney187: It establishes that Zimmerman is probably telling the truth about being attacked (viciously); that a certain segment of the US population, who are held to an affirmative interpretation of the law by, are prone to horrific violence and general lawlessness and that Martin was a member of that segment.

White people really have proven to be so non-violent and peaceful, especially to minorities. American history is one long story of the peaceful, pacifist whites being cruelly victimized by the lesser races.

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with you Mr. Queeg. Martin attacked Zimmerman because he was angry about historical injustices and sought revenge. It's more common than most people know.

""I was trying to prove a point that Europeans had colonized the world, and as a result of that, we see a lot of evil today," he said. "In terms of slavery, it was something that needed to be answered for. I was trying to spread the message of making white people mend."

And this cat was one of the "smart" ones. Another "random loon", eh? How many random loons does it take to constitute a culture of violence and aggression?

If we were to judge Martin by the company he kept, then I'm glad Martin was probably more than half an idiot.

I got sucker punched by a wrestler, then he slammed my head into a table. It didn't occur to me that I might could have shot him. I was getting ready to push his eyeballs into his brain when some classmates broke it up. I wouldn't have shot Martin either, but chics and pussies get to do girl push-ups. It's street physics.